The other danger with thoughts like Yancy's is that if you buy into it, then nothing will ever be good enough for him and anything bad that happens to
him will never be his fault.

If good things happen to him in life, then how much better might it have been if he wasn't stuck living in a racist society surrounded by racist
whites?

If something bad happens, was it his fault or responsibility or did it happen because he lives in a racist society surrounded by racist whites?

Because in his view whites are racist no matter what simply because they are white and society is racist too. So because he is not white and must live
in a society surrounded by whites and, in his view, set up by the same, then everything is against him. OMG! The man is likely an unrecognized Nobel
Laureate, but because he lives in a racist society surrounded by racist whites, no one will ever know his true brilliance ... Heck, the Noble is a
racist white construction anyhow ...

What he seems to be saying is that white people are lesser than all other humans because we carry a defect known as "racism". He of course (in
his own mind) has no such defects, because as a black man he is superior.

NO, you claim he thinks that he's superior because he's calling whites racist.

The reasons whites are accused of racism clogs the history books, I don't need him to tell me this.

Now you're offended for being reminded and you want to put him down, don't you?

Let see Racist come in MANY colors throughout history. The CHINESE were...the japanese were..the arabs were.... Point is its not just"whitey" in th e
history books. They just get th e most blame because they were th e biggest group for a while there.

No th e reason whites ar e accusse d of racism is we dont bother defending our selves from the accusations. And that th emedia cant make a profit off
of reporting reverse racism.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is
idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in
behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally,
physically, and socially.

Lee did not favor slavery. He said slaves were better off here because they were fed, clothed, and provided shelter. In Africa, they would have been
competing with cannibalistic tribes and killers. Oh, let me guess... You think slaves were beat and abused all the time, daily by every slave owner,
right? Wrong. They were better off here, and weren't far off from being freed regardless. I've always laughed at how people call the actual history a
revised history, yet claim its true the way its written today. Heh

I really don't care if my actions are beyond criticism. Have you ever heard of the knockout game where blacks punch unsuspecting whites just to see if
they can knock them out? At least I'd be taking out a bully. I wouldn't mind if girls fought, a girl needs to be able to take care of herself if her
man isn't there to protect her. I'd rather my girl carry a pistol for protection.

Anyways, punching this guy isn't what i would consider violent. It's more of a "STFU you racist moron" kinda deal for me. And if anyone feels that way
towards me, I welcome them to approach me and punch me in the jaw or attempt to. I wouldn't do anything to anyone that I would hate to be done to me,
so don't worry, I'm not discriminating or being a hypocrite.

You tried pulling the 'elder' thing on me (as if that's some valid argument), when it looks like I'm about the same age as you. I asked if you think
women go around settling their differences with fisticuffs, but it looks like you don't believe that anyway. Therefore, your 'typical behavior' is
actually not; it would apply only to men. I'm not sure how he is a bully writing an open letter in an opinion section of The New York Times.
Perhaps you can clarify?

The knockout game is basically
an urban legend. There are well over a hundred thousand assaults a year, and it sure ain't a new thing.

Yes, punching someone and knocking out their teeth is violent by the very definition of the word. It doesn't matter that you think it
isn't.

I'll be 37 Wednesday. I brought up age because you act as though fighting doesn't solve anything. Anyone that has been in a fight knows it solves the
problem nearly every time. Yeah, you can claim the knockout game is an urban legend. Perhaps the media will pick up on the white kids that are bored
and go around targeting black women and elderly black men. I'm sure it'll remain an urban legend.

You're assuming things. If I'm steadily forcing you to think you're a racist just for being white, you're a bully. Enlighten me where politics comes
to play in that, I'll wait.

*I*'m assuming things?!? Hoo boy.

I'm a bully because you're forcing me to think I'm a bully for being white? What?

Did you perhaps mean to say something like "Dr. Yancy is a bully for making people think they are racist just for being white?"

You're going to have to make some sense before we move on to politics ... honestly.

Is that what you were trying to say?

Yes, now where does disagreeing with his politics fall in?

His letter is a political statement, for starters.

Why else would he pen such a thing? He's trying to get out a message to change the way people think, act, and go about their lives?

Do you think "politics" is limited to R and D?

Seeing that politics is the academic study of government and the state, I don't find where his racist statements were political. Not in my opinion
anyways, so with that being said, it's not his politics I'm in disagreement with, nor his politics that make him a bully.

The problem with that is the Gov't are the real bullies. People need to strategize and come together in order to think of a solution to eliminate
the enemy within. When that happens, everything will change. Until then, nothing. I truly hope it does though, and soon. People are smarter than
that, they know what's going on however, they need a leader to pave the way, something to believe in. Then revolution will begin and freedom will
reign.

We tried getting away from a corrupt and bullyish government in 1860-61... All that proved is that the victors get to rewrite history the way they
want to.

Today it is taught it was about slavery.

When in fact it was about states rights VS. the FED GOV.

Good spin tactics existed even back then.

Complete and utter nonsense. It was only about states rights in as far as the Southern States wanted to preserve and expand slavery.

And this is indisputably proved through the official, clear and articulate declarations of those states explaining why they were seceding from the
union.

No offense but that is silly propaganda espoused by those looking to cast slave owners as victims.

You can engage in some objective research if you choose..

Why because you dont like it?

Before that, the states had the rights to tell the FED GOV to stuff it.

After they all must bow down to the FED GOV on any issue it makes a declaration on.

Slavery was just the issue that brought it to a head.

It could have been any other issue.

The fact is, some wanted a centralized power in total control of the country, instead of many states controlling themselves with minimalist federal
control.

Slavery was just a great propaganda piece to use to force this issue.

Because nobody in their right minds would want slavery to continue, or a centralized power with full authority.

But as most things, it wasnt divided into 2 seperate issues.

It was made into 1 issue.

Slavery ended, and began on the same day.

Now blacks arent slaves, but the states are in fact slaves to the FED GOV.

Slavery would have ended eventually no matter what, but they only had the one chance to install federal dictatorship over the states.

So instead of state level legislation finally ending slavery, they ended it, and established absolute authority for the FED GOV over the states at the
same time.

I thought that was obvious.

Seeing how all the confederate states didnt argue the merits of slavery, but the rights of the states to rule themselves.

That is why they left.

Robert E Lee, one of the greatest battlefield commanders in history was asked by Lincoln to lead the FED ARMY, he declined, instead choosing to
represent his home state Virginia.

This is a historical fact.

He didnt do it because he wanted slaves, he did it because he didnt want Virginia ruled by washington.

Many don't know this, because it's not discussed in the revised history books and doesn't put such a rancid light on the Confederacy. Lee didn't even
favor the idea of slavery. How many people know that though?

You're assuming things. If I'm steadily forcing you to think you're a racist just for being white, you're a bully. Enlighten me where politics comes
to play in that, I'll wait.

*I*'m assuming things?!? Hoo boy.

I'm a bully because you're forcing me to think I'm a bully for being white? What?

Did you perhaps mean to say something like "Dr. Yancy is a bully for making people think they are racist just for being white?"

You're going to have to make some sense before we move on to politics ... honestly.

Is that what you were trying to say?

Yes, now where does disagreeing with his politics fall in?

His letter is a political statement, for starters.

Why else would he pen such a thing? He's trying to get out a message to change the way people think, act, and go about their lives?

Do you think "politics" is limited to R and D?

Seeing that politics is the academic study of government and the state, I don't find where his racist statements were political. Not in my opinion
anyways, so with that being said, it's not his politics I'm in disagreement with, nor his politics that make him a bully.

What? Who said that politics is "the academic study of ... "? That would be Political Science, Sociology, etc.

Politics, as I use it means or has more to do with all the ways that are used to influence "the people" to support "the leaders" or at least "the
civil organization."

It's Greek ... "of (or for) the citizens."

In a more modern sense, in academic settings, politics is also related to "taking a position on the issues" and then arguing from that basis. For
example, what this man in the OP did was to write an article drawing on purely academic definitions, criteria, etc., and made arguments that might
make sense from a particular academic "political" position, but make none to little in the actual day to day real world.

That's why I implied above that he has his head lodged firmly in the Ivory Tower's oubliette.

We're all racist, me, him, you ... all of us. Hopefully, the content of our character prevents us from mistreating others because of that racism.

`````

So, what does make him a bully then? How is he intimidating you to do something you don't want to do?

Hell yes subtle or not the dudes a racist and thinks all of us should feel guilt and or privilege it's just getting old, wish some of these idiots
would have this conversation publicly in the town square.

I think you need to read the letter:

I can see your anger. I can see that this letter is being misunderstood. This letter is not asking you to feel bad about yourself, to wallow in
guilt.

If someone starts punching you while proclaiming they're not punching you, is it still happening?

The problem with that is the Gov't are the real bullies. People need to strategize and come together in order to think of a solution to eliminate
the enemy within. When that happens, everything will change. Until then, nothing. I truly hope it does though, and soon. People are smarter than
that, they know what's going on however, they need a leader to pave the way, something to believe in. Then revolution will begin and freedom will
reign.

We tried getting away from a corrupt and bullyish government in 1860-61... All that proved is that the victors get to rewrite history the way they
want to.

Today it is taught it was about slavery.

When in fact it was about states rights VS. the FED GOV.

Good spin tactics existed even back then.

Complete and utter nonsense. It was only about states rights in as far as the Southern States wanted to preserve and expand slavery.

And this is indisputably proved through the official, clear and articulate declarations of those states explaining why they were seceding from the
union.

No offense but that is silly propaganda espoused by those looking to cast slave owners as victims.

You can engage in some objective research if you choose..

Why because you dont like it?

Before that, the states had the rights to tell the FED GOV to stuff it.

After they all must bow down to the FED GOV on any issue it makes a declaration on.

Slavery was just the issue that brought it to a head.

It could have been any other issue.

The fact is, some wanted a centralized power in total control of the country, instead of many states controlling themselves with minimalist federal
control.

Slavery was just a great propaganda piece to use to force this issue.

Because nobody in their right minds would want slavery to continue, or a centralized power with full authority.

But as most things, it wasnt divided into 2 seperate issues.

It was made into 1 issue.

Slavery ended, and began on the same day.

Now blacks arent slaves, but the states are in fact slaves to the FED GOV.

Slavery would have ended eventually no matter what, but they only had the one chance to install federal dictatorship over the states.

So instead of state level legislation finally ending slavery, they ended it, and established absolute authority for the FED GOV over the states at the
same time.

I thought that was obvious.

Seeing how all the confederate states didnt argue the merits of slavery, but the rights of the states to rule themselves.

That is why they left.

Robert E Lee, one of the greatest battlefield commanders in history was asked by Lincoln to lead the FED ARMY, he declined, instead choosing to
represent his home state Virginia.

This is a historical fact.

He didnt do it because he wanted slaves, he did it because he didnt want Virginia ruled by washington.

Many don't know this, because it's not discussed in the revised history books and doesn't put such a rancid light on the Confederacy. Lee didn't even
favor the idea of slavery. How many people know that though?

At least a couple of us still know it.

Hard to know how long until it is none.

Antediluvian quoted Lee making statements along those lines above ... this information is not that rare ... but Lee's perspective does not mean that
the slavery issue was not the focal point of the Civil War. The State vs. National Government issue has been going as long as we've had States and a
Country.

Even a conservative-leaning website will report over 40% of
violent crimes being committed by whites and under 25% of the same crimes being committed by blacks.

That is statistical manipulation.

It isnt using them the right way.

It is using them as a metric of the whole of all crimes.

Instead of as a percentage of the black populace.

Because no matter how you spin it, when 13% of a population are responsible for 25% of the violent crimes, they are comiting more crimes more often
then the majority white population.

You do understand that if 13% of a population commits 25% of the total populations crimes, then that one segment is causing a significantly greater
amount of crimes per capita than the majority right?

Of course it's manipulation. That's what all statistics are - manipulation of data.

Let me point out something - this data comes from cleared offenses, which opens up a couple of problems. One is the sheer number of unsolved
cases.

A third of murders are never solved -
and that 66% clearance rate is just the number of arrests (or exceptionally cleared, when the suspect is deceased). That's the high-priority
murder clearance rates.

For lower-priority crimes, it's far worse. 47% of all violent crime (including murder)
was cleared by an arrest in 2009, which means 53% of violent crime was completely unsolved. Of those 47% of cleared cases, not all will be
convicted.

For example, in 2009, there were 330,368 arrests for aggravated assaults out of
700,465 offenses. Sorry, but drawing conclusions from those statistics is a bit flawed.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.